paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Mar 31, 2015 16:16:16 GMT -5
It has come to my attention that the comments submitted by the NYS Conservation Council regarding the fisher management plan, via their fur resources committee is opposite of that taken by the NYS Trappers Assn. The portion of their comments that very much upsets me is in reference to the Adirondack portions. They have taken the position of support for a shortened season, use of quotas, or a combination of both. Essentially what they have done is thrown Adirondack trappers under the bus. NYSTA has taken the very strong position that there be NO CHANGES until scientific research has been accomplished to justify whatever actions to be taken. The fact is at this time DEC does not have that data, only supposition. Certainly NYSTA would support any actions taken once the scientific data was in, BUT NOT UNTIL! Also, supporting quotas is a very dangerous precedent.DEC has already indicated they intend to use them down the road on other species.Quotas are totally unneeded and harvests can well be managed by season lengths. Apparently no consideration was given to that, but the fact is that quotas would adversely affect all New York trappers, not just fisher trappers. Unfortunately there are those with tunnel vision; and can't see the forest for all of the trees. The comment period is over and what will be, will be. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, however I find it disgusting that a state wide sportsmen's organization would not have consulted first with NYSTA. Certainly on trapping related matters the New York State Trappers Association should be taking the lead, not the other way around. Also, I find it very hard to believe that the fur resources committee comments truly represent the opinions of the county federation across the state and particularly those of the north country. Mad? you bet i'm mad! Sportsmen across the state should be working together and supporting each other! This is not the first that I have seen of the know it all, condescending attitude of the state council and I for one want nothing to do with them!
|
|
|
Post by kirkwooder on Mar 31, 2015 17:51:42 GMT -5
Did the NYSTA contact the Conservation Council and discuss their position on the fisher management plan before the Conservation Council submitted it's comments?
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Mar 31, 2015 18:26:18 GMT -5
There were talks with the council president prior to the council taking tghe position they did.
|
|
|
Post by kirkwooder on Mar 31, 2015 20:46:11 GMT -5
I take it that the president didn't reveal their plan to disagree or give a reason why. Do they not realize that limits on fur bearers will be detrimental to all sportsmen? I don't understand some peoples line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Mar 31, 2015 21:04:23 GMT -5
Dear Mr.Kirkwooder, The NYSCC advocates bag limits and season manipulation as a sound management practice. Its in line with their mission statement. Regards
|
|
|
Post by kirkwooder on Mar 31, 2015 22:32:41 GMT -5
I don't necessarily disagree with the use of manipulation of seasons if the science supports such measures. So far I've seen no such scientific support. All I saw in the fisher plan was confusion, compilations of half truths, and unsubstantiated data.
The only science that I have seen shows that the most successful way to regulate harvest is to adjust season length.
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Apr 1, 2015 7:28:41 GMT -5
Dear Friends, New York State Conservation Council...."A non~profit organization preserving and protecting the world we live in."
CONSERVATION ~ Proper use of nature by REGULATING human use
PRESERVATION ~ Protection of nature by ELIMINATING human impact (use)
No boys and girls, these two words do not mean the same thing!
Regards
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Apr 1, 2015 8:58:32 GMT -5
winter of 2013 they said 300 camera sites 65 percent image capture... 2014.... 608 camera sites 70 percent image capture, sure some of those captures were repeats, but pretty sure they didn't hit every individual fisher in the study areas either..or set up every individual core habitat across the region... it would be impossible and i can only imagine funding didn't allow the camera sites to be checked every 24 hours, unless they could do it remotely!
70 percent of 608 is roughly 425 image captures at individual sites... is the target harvest based on the image captures alone cause the dna study portion is going to go with the funding and more than likely the camera site studies also.
kinda reminds me of the famous we like to see a 100 beaver for every otter... just isn't going to happen here habitat wise.
425 capture images or in trapping terms a one style set, bait presentation and skunked up lure system to capture hair dna on wire brushes and photo capture images in 608 set locations with a 70 percent success rate... for a one fisher limit and eight check day management plan, along with chinese math for the northern zone cant wait to see the other forthcoming plans...
don't care how they cut it that's almost ten times the amount in place than the catskills had ... truly don't understand how they are going to figure actual dispersal, reproduction and all the other habitat dynamics involved with what they propose without an actual harvest to base it on, in the proposed new areas, seems a seventy percent catch rate with a one set system in basically a general macro specific habitat type location, seems to be a fairly high success rate to me for first and second year college students, experience wise....
there is a whole host of things to be disgusted with this plan, how about an agency in charge, that should support an actual study prior to any hard adverse changes to an actual in place season, they have no remorse to what was done here with the otters, but they ask for everyones faith in them and on what their now proposing, which is basically a repeat of a two decade long fiasco here...
yup a hundred beaver for every otter mentality... regardless of actual habitat limitations... im coming to realize enhancement is saturation, regardless of actual on the ground available habitat and available prey base, they'll be adversely affecting all of us sooner or later with uncompleted in place never forthcoming promised studies and half ass finished restoration "enhancement" programs decades from now ... hell we'll just put them all in town houses and feed them smuckers jelly or better yet out of the duncan dounut trash bin .. once they go through everything else... that way the masses of observers who never step in the woods, can watch them in their new natural state, reduced to pot lickers with an attitude!!.... jim
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 1, 2015 12:12:35 GMT -5
I'm disgusted with an agency going around bragging about th fisher expansion into central and western New York, while at the same time allowing the population in the Adirondacks to deteriorate to the point that DEC claims is no longer able to sustain itself. Sure seems to me that someone was asleep at the switch. That did not happen over night.Where is the bragging about that??? I'm disgusted with a department that opened the Catskill season with no quotas or shortened season, and now wants to limit a new season to nine days with a quota of one. Is there a sustainable population there or is there not? I'm disgusted with an otter closure covering two decades when it never should have been closed in the first place. I'm disgusted with a public comment period of only thirty days, while the department had three years to prepare their plan, which after all that time turned out to be a very sorry presentation. I'm disgusted with the picking and choosing of supportive documentation for the draft.In particular I'm disgusted that the Nathan Roberts St.Lawrence area study was delibertately excluded. I'm particularly disgusted that the department chose to use the 2011 survey that was very carefully worded to get the anwers the department wanted.I'm very disgusted that the department can't be honest with sportsmen, case in point all of the excuses and falsehoods with th otter restoration and closures.Where is the bragging there? What back room deals were made? I'm disgusted with a department that caters to the corrupt politicians in Albany along with the environmental whackos to the point of non management of our forests and wildlife. I was raised to be a conservationist. I believe in the wise use, not abuse, of our renewable natural resources. I'm disgusted that our department doesn't follow that creed.
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Apr 1, 2015 15:36:12 GMT -5
personally i think the numbers in the adirondack region on areas that need "enhancement"... have more to do with the marten... funny how the areas without a marten season seem to be doing quite well (see strategy 2.1.1) every where martin season is open there is an apparent decline or need for fisher enhancement, i find that kinda interesting or peculiar... as a layman would like it explained better by them with out chinese math... but that will never happen... seeing how martin are also in a recent apparent expansion out of their traditional habitat, kinda just makes you wonder some...jim
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 1, 2015 16:47:09 GMT -5
One of my big hang ups with DEC is their lack of openess with the trappers. I do not think these jackass seasons have anything to do with fisher. I do think that there is a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" going on between states.I think the quota mentality and the "trophy" mentality originated in other states.Pennsylvania is talking about a three day otter season in the Pocono region.I certainly hope New York doesn't follow suit with that brain fart! As for my original faults with the Conservation Council I see too many "yes men" hoping to land a job in DEC. I think that is what happened with the fisher comments. just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Apr 1, 2015 18:33:31 GMT -5
that pocono otter season is a joke... they did their scat studies the same time andy macduff and cornell did theirs for the mohawk region...
the area they are opening up in the poconos bounds the delaware river where nys shut us down. thats not a season or an actual harvest opportunity their selling, its a washington dc pistol permit...
if that's what nys has in mind... why even bother... pennsylvania has the region covered... wouldn't want the apparent overflow from our area into theirs for the last twenty years, end the ability for such a "trophy event" to take place...jim
|
|
|
Post by herm on Apr 1, 2015 19:28:12 GMT -5
The Wayne County Federation voted to oppose the Fisher Management Plan. The Council again this year takes the credit for being the lead org. in the Youth Trapper Mentoring Program which I do not recall them having anything to do with it. This past weekend at the Houndsmen Banquit I asked our Council rep about the proposed coyote season being lenghtend and by what means were they going to try to get it passed and did not recieve an answer to my question.
|
|
|
Post by squash on Apr 2, 2015 7:30:39 GMT -5
The suggestion based on flawed data that the fisher population cannot sustain itself in the ADK's is laughable. I'm curious to how the fisher in the ADK's survived the high fur prices in the 80's, ($75 - $300)and at the same time ADK and Tug hill trappers were live trapping them to reintroduce them to the Southern zone ? In my area there were a heck of a lot more trappers then than there are now. Before fisher were reintroduced on Tug Hill (mid 60's), there was a thriving bobcat population. Because of state bounty on cats hunting with hounds on tug hill was intense. Cat populations were decimated, and at the same time fisher returned and coyotes showed up. Now in the past few years, even with high prices being paid for bobcat pelts, Bobcats have rebounded here on Tug Hill and else where in NY, to the point where I and others I know have caught or shot them.
And if for some stretch of the imagination fisher populations are in trouble in the ADK's, then it reflects on how the NYSDEC manages habitat in the dacks.
|
|
|
Post by herm on Apr 2, 2015 18:47:11 GMT -5
Over on KCs Hounds and Hunting forum a member of the NYSCC FRC posted her comment that she sent in to the DEC opposing the plan. Also posted is the chairman of the NYSCC FRC letter in support of the plan. The member of the FRC who opposes the Fisher plan says no one even contacted her to see if she support the plan or not.
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 2, 2015 19:19:34 GMT -5
That figures. All the more reason to have no respect for him, and for the council president to allow it.
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Apr 2, 2015 20:51:13 GMT -5
thanks for posting where to find the letter, to read it... the chairman...is that who i think it is?... jim
..............................................................................................................
"The member of the FRC who opposes the Fisher plan says no one even contacted her to see if she support the plan or not."
his letter said we... kinda makes you wonder who the hell we is,then ...jim
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 3, 2015 18:39:19 GMT -5
"We" should have been me". Once again the counsel has come out on the wrong side of an issue and does not truly represent it's membership.
|
|
|
Post by flatiron on Apr 4, 2015 6:41:12 GMT -5
For years I have had little or no use for the council! A bunch of good old boys who main objectives are personnel gains for themselves.,I have watched them drain the coffers of local club for dinners, elections and to support their personal gains. Main agenda for most Imo is deer and deer hunting, they repeatedly take credit for issues others had succeeded in accomplishing. Youth trapping camp for example and many others, they will be pushing for year round coyote season and qdm again soon I'm sure. I feel they are a cancer to most outdoorsmen and no friend of dogmen or trappers OR the average deer hunter.
|
|
|
Post by johnrockwood on Apr 4, 2015 7:08:11 GMT -5
Did the NYSTA contact the Conservation Council and discuss their position on the fisher management plan before the Conservation Council submitted it's comments? Last summer, I believe in July, Dave Miller and I met with the Council's President to express our displeasure regarding their pre - draft fisher management plan position statement sent to DEC which nearly mirrored their present position statement, even to the point of suggesting the implementation of bag limits to the Department. We explained our NYSTA position, in detail, to the Council President at that time and asked that out of courtesy, before they EVER address another trapping related issue in NY that they first confer with NYSTA as the NYSTA is the leading trapping organization in this state. At that time our JTI Committee had already been in joint meetings with the DEC Furbearer Management Team. The FMT was fully aware of the NYSTA position in regard to season dates, bag limits, etc. as a result of those meetings. Upon publication of the plan, I spoke with the Council's President once again regarding the NYSTA position and again explained in great detail why we have taken the position we do. I also spoke to their Fur Resource Committee Chairman at length regarding our position. The Council President stated that he would take our position "into consideration" when developing their written comments to the plan. Within days of the above phone conversations I forwarded the official NYSTA position, as drafted by the JTI Committee, to the Council's President via email. This was the same bullet point email that was sent to the NYSTA Officers, Directors, County Reps, and every trapper on our "Alert" email list; as well as mailed by first class mail to every NYSTA member. Several days after the conclusion of the 30 day comment period I made a request to the Council President to be informed of their position in the hope that they supported NYSTA. It took several days to get their response. The Council not only supported bag limits but also offered up bag limits additionally as a solution to the DEC's presumed undocumented decline of the fisher population in the Adirondacks in conjunction with a shortened season! In all fairness, I have to also state that the Council did support some of the NYSTA position but also either "forgot" to address many of the important points or "chose" not to address those points at all. Although I am very disgusted with the Council's position and the fact that they disregarded the input they received from the NYSTA, I am proud to say that some of the County Federations completely supported the NYSTA position and we thank each and every one of those that did. Maybe it is time for those County Federation representatives to question why the Council continues along this path?
|
|
wcs
Posts: 1,159
|
Post by wcs on Apr 4, 2015 8:03:29 GMT -5
Unreal
|
|
|
Post by herm on Apr 4, 2015 8:30:01 GMT -5
I know for a fact the some that are in leadership roles in at least two state assa. that many on this forum belong to, look at the NYSCC the same way as business look at the Reverend Al Sharpton. They don't like what he does, but they are afraid of what will happen if they do not support him. That being the case, this is not a good enough reason to belong to the NYSCC or any other simular group.
|
|
austinp
#3 Newhouse
the next fur season is never far from our minds :)
Posts: 3,008
|
Post by austinp on Apr 4, 2015 8:37:45 GMT -5
It's always painful to be in a one-way relationship... when you are on the giving side only, and not the taking side.
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 688
|
Post by paintedpaw on Apr 4, 2015 9:01:18 GMT -5
I would agree with Von's assessment. The NYSCC is a cancer upon the sportsmen of this state and is a d@mn poor representation of New York Sportsmen.The leadership is pathetic and like our leadership in Washington I would ask, "Is this the best we can do?" I have many disagreements with the council, in particular their position on blaze orange. I have attended Council meetings in the past, as well as those of the Adirondack Conservation Council and did not like what I saw; got as far away from them as I could, although there are some good persons that are their members. John outlined exactly what transpired with the conversations with the NYSCC. I can honestly say, to a man, the position drafted by the JTI Committee for NYSTA, was unanimously agreed upon. The condescending attitude of NYSCC has not changed.As for the FRC, that opinion should have been voiced as the Chairman's own, not that of the committee, and not that of the entire council. They make me sick!
|
|
|
Post by kirkwooder on Apr 4, 2015 11:05:57 GMT -5
How many members does the NYSCC have? Maybe it would do them some good to have a thousand or so trappers join their ranks. Not that a thousand trappers would ever join, but just think what it would do to their way of thinking.
|
|